Showing posts with label Primitive Baptist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Primitive Baptist. Show all posts

Friday, July 2, 2021

WHAT ABOUT THE OLD REGULAR BAPTISTS?

    The Old Regular Baptists are another primitive sect of Baptists. Mainly found in the Appalachian region of Kentucky, where in some rural counties they are the predominant group among all churches, except Missionary Baptists. Where did they come from and how are they different from other Primitives? Let's take a look. 

   Originally, they were called "Old Regular Primitive Baptists". This name lasted until the 1890's. They dropped "Primitive" from their name in response to new doctrines and extremes that other Primitive Baptists were beginning to embrace. These extremes include the new teaching among Hardshell PB's that  hearing and believing Gospel has nothing to do with eternal salvation, as well as absolute predestination of all things among some Old Liners. Until this time, most Old Regulars had correspondence with other PB's, yet they were always distinct from them in many ways. The Old Regulars are a remnant of the Regular and Separate Baptist union, and they have always allowed for differing views on the atonement. There seems to have been 3 different streams of them in the beginning. One was calvinistic, one was like the Eastern District Association of Primitive Baptists being neither Calvinist nor Arminian and holding to a general atonement, and another believing in limited atonement, yet rejecting individual predestination. In other words anyone can be saved, but because of God's foreknowledge, Christ only died for those God knew would accept His invitation. The first faction is all but gone, as most of those churches split when the Old Liners began preaching their new doctrines, with some going with them, and others joining  one of the other two factions, having been "convinced that it is of no use to hold to this extreme Calvinism, and if we are to err, it will be on the side, of inviting all to come to repentance and let our great and mighty God deal with the consequences". This seemed to be agreeable to the other Old Regulars, so there may have been more than one view in the same church.

   There are some doctrinal distinctives exclusive to them (more or less). One is the belief that "doubting" your salvation is both healthy and evidence that one is born again. They hold to eternal security of the believer, yet there is constancy in testing "to see if you be in the faith". Most are in doctrinal harmony with the United Baptists, which are also common in Kentucky. Like other Primitives they observe footwashing. There is some disagreement among them as to when a person is born again, some holding it begins at the beginning of their "travail" and others at the end of it. In my church we would call this being under "conviction".They always issue an invitation at the end of the sermon.The following are the Articles of Faith common to most, copied directly from the Old Regular website.

We believe in the one true and living God, and not withstanding there are Three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, yet there is but one in substance, equal in power and glory, not to be divided and impossible to change in principle and practice.


We believe the Old and New Testament Scriptures are the true written words of God and were given by inspiration of God and there is a sufficiency in them contained for our instruction and they are the only rule of our faith and practice.


We believe the doctrine of original sin, and that man sinned since the fall, and that men are by nature the children of wrath.


We believe in the impotency or inability of men to recover themselves out of the state they are in; therefore, a Savior is absolutely needed.


We believe that sinners are justified in the sight of God only by the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ.


We believe in the perseverance of the Saints. That by grace through faith they are born again and adopted into the family of Heaven; that they will become equal heirs with Jesus Christ in glory, and that He will raise them up at the last day.


We believe that Baptism and the Lord's Supper are Gospel Ordinances; that true believers are the proper subjects and we admit no other.


We believe that the true mode of baptism is by immersion, to baptize a person by their own consent, back foremost in the water, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.


We believe that washing of one anothers feet is a commandment of Christ, left on record with His disciples, and ought to be practiced by His followers.


We believe in the resurrection of the dead and general judgment when all will be judged according to their deeds done in the body.


We believe the punishment of the wicked will be everlasting and the joys of the righteous will be eternal after death.


We believe that no one has the right to administer the Gospel Ordinances but such as are legally ordained and qualified there unto.


We believe it to be the duty of all church members to attend church meetings, and that it is the duty of the church to deal with them for neglecting same.


We believe it to be the duty of all church members to contribute to the support of the church by defraying all reasonable expenses of same, never neglecting the poor, according to their several abilities.


We believe that any doctrine that goes to encourage or indulge the people in their sins or cause them to settle down on anything short of saving grace in Christ for salvation is erroneous and such doctrine will be rejected by us.


None of the above articles shall be construed as to hold with particular election or reprobation as to make God partial directly or indirectly so as to injure children of man.

   Like other Primitives, they rejected Sunday Schools, instruments, and mission societies and paid ministers. Unlike other Primitives, they only baptize in "living water", meaning lakes or rivers. I believe this has to do with symbolism more than doctrine though, as they are "liberal" in accepting others into their fellowship those who were baptized in other Baptist churches which use indoor baptistries. Unlike other Primitives, some of them have a strain of legalism, whereby women do not cut their hair and wear only dresses well below the knees, and makeup is frowned upon. This however is beginning to change, as a new crop of them has come up who became alarmed at the dwindling numbers in their churches. In the last 10 to 15 years, a younger generation has begun to plant new churches, even way beyond the borders of their associations located in Kentucky, in North Carolina, Florida, Michigan and Arkansas which reject this legalism. Most, whether legalistic or not, have no issue with observing holidays like Christmas and Easter in their churches.

   If you visited one of their churches, you would find much similarity with other Primitives. No music, with some singing lined-out style, and others singing the more familiar tunes but with no music. The newer churches even sing contemporary Christian songs, altho with no musical instruments. One note of difference though, is that they are the only sect I know of where the style of preaching is exclusively done in "holy tone", a style of preaching that is almost sung or chanted. While their doctrine has not changed, recently they have begun to reach out more, establishing new churches, and being more open on "optional" things like dress, hair etc. Most are very warm and would welcome any to visit, and the elders I have spoken with have been very kind and forth right in the info they have given me. Although they are small in numbers, if their current rate of establishing new churches continues, they will outnumber the Old Line PB's within a generation, and as long as they are preaching the Gospel to all, and extending the invitation to all, I wish them much blessing and success. Ken Mann


Thursday, June 24, 2021

WHO REMOVED THE CANDLESTICK? "REFORMED BAPTIST vs PRIMITIVE BAPTIST"

 In Revelation 2:5, Jesus gives gives us a warning we had better heed. He says, “Repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick.”

  In my last few articles, I have concentrated on the errors I believe "Reformed Baptists" have embraced. I have also stated that I believe the errors of the hardshell faction of Primitive Baptists had their origins in Reformed theology. I realize those who call themselves "Reformed Baptists" will state that they are not in agreement with the hardshells, however, the hardshells themselves did not embrace what they now do in the beginning. Could it be that we are seeing circular reasoning before our eyes? Has a new "breed" come along that will one day espouse the very same views the hardshells now embrace? After all, before they adopted the name "Primitive Baptist" they styled themselves "Reformed Baptist". 

   These two groups have the same starting point theologically. They both claim the London Baptist Confession. They both claim to be the the continuing generation of past Particular Baptists, especially those from England. Is it possible that we can see into the future, and know what the "Reformed Baptists" will be 100 years from now?

   It is true that  "Reformed Baptists" have no squabble with music, Sunday Schools or missions (yet) etc as the Primitives do, but what about salvation? Did the hardshell Primitives merely take Reformed theology to its logical conclusion? This conclusion would lead them to abandon any evangelistic preaching, any call to repentance and any call to believe the Gospel. Neither group gives an invitation to come to Christ, or an "altar call". Both groups have those that embrace the belief that  the elect were "saved" before they were even born. Both groups cannot know with full assurance, if they are among the elect. The hardshell Primitives however believe "95%" of people are elect, although most don't know it, contrasted with "Reformed" Baptists who say only "5%" are. (my estimation to prove a point) The hardshells take pride in "knowing" the "secrets" of the Gospel, and the "Reformed" in having a gospel of "secrets", only revealed by their particular expression. Both groups have doubts that one must hear the Gospel and believe in order to be among the elect, the Primitive hardshells embracing that doubt and the "Reformed" debating it.

  In a blog by "the ears to hear" who is a hardshell PB apologist, he says this "...because the Second London Confession is in no small measure directly copied from the WCF (Westminster Confession of Faith) which preceded it, those who believe it represents an authoritative standard for Old Baptist orthodoxy are admitting, at least in part, that Old Baptist heritage is a product of the reformation, rather than a product of the Anabaptists who long preceded and were persecuted by the reformers". Could  he be on to something here? "The ears to hear" is a hardshell that embraces their heresies, and defends them,he is wrong on just about everything that has to do with salvation, yet there is a nibble of truth in what he says here. If the starting point of your theology is the Reformation, then don't be surprised  when the road you travel ends with the candlestick being removed from your churches, and soon after the people will be removed, and soon after that the churches will dwindle and close.

  In closing please know that I am not here to attack the Second London Confession, nor those that now embrace it. It is just one among many Baptist confessions, some of which I subscribe to and some of which I do not. That is my (and your) liberty as Baptists. However, some so called Baptists are not convinced that something is true unless it is found in their respective confessions. Maybe sometimes we need to go to the beginning and re-read them. All Baptist confessions that I know of have at least one complete sentence with which I definitely agree, and it's usually contained in the beginning. And so it is with the Second London Baptist Confession, the beginning line with which I will ALWAYS agree.
“The Holy Scripture is the ONLY sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all SAVING KNOWLEDGE, faith, and obedience.” (Second London Confession of Faith, 1.1) A KNOWLEDGE THAT SAVES, must be a KNOWLEDGE THAT KNOWS.

                                                                SELAH, Ken Mann


 

Tuesday, June 22, 2021

QUESTIONS FOR "REFORMED THEOLOGY"

 In light of what I have learned about Reformed theology, there are some questions I wish they would (or could) answer. It is true that from the perspective of the natural mind, that there are a great many mysteries that we can not now understand, such as the trinity, or how could a being be self existent and uncreated as God is. Nevertheless, when we form theology based on a certain system or through a certain lens that we must look through, then it is possible that questions which can't be answered, may reveal flaws in that theological system. So let's ask.

1. If we assume that the Reformed position of  predestination is true, then why did the reformers require church attendance of the whole city or nation? Were they trying to "save" them? Didn't this mean that the vast majority of church members were unregenerated, or was every citizen of Geneva and Switzerland already among the elect? Forced church attendance makes sense if one is Roman Catholic, as no one has salvation yet, but merely trying to attain it through the "church. And of course since they "wanted" everyone to be saved, passing laws requiring infant baptism and church membership is the "compassionate" thing to do.

2. If the "church" has totally replaced Israel, and is now the "new covenant nation", which "church" is that new nation? Is the Roman Catholic Church the one founded by Christ and the apostles? And if it is, has God abandoned that church since the Reformed Churches are the "corrected" and "reformed" catholic church? Did the gates of hell prevail? Or will God at some point "restore" the Roman church which will then reunite with her daughter churches? 

3. Were the Reformers in error when they persecuted other believers just as their mother church did, or did they have the right to do so, since they were now "Israel" and just purging "error" from the land as King Saul did when he banished witches? And if they were right in doing so, how is it now that they will accept those who received baptism from other churches, without being rebaptised? Weren't the reformers in essence, setting themselves up as a type of pope which could not err in his authority? Explain from Scripture where we are told to forcefully impose "Christianity" on anyone.

4. Does God favor certain people groups over others? How is it, from the reformed position, that some nations have many Christians while others have none or very few? It seems there are only 2 possible answers. Either hearing the Gospel isn't necessary and there are many regenerated persons in places where Christianity is small or non existent who aren't aware of it, or for some reason God does favor certain nations or people groups.

5. Can someone please tell me, at what point someone is no longer considered "Reformed" when they abandon certain Reformed doctrines? Is it when they abandon calvinistic soteriology as the Cumberland Presbyterians did? Is it when they abandon infant baptism? Is it when they abandon a hierarchical church gov't?

In closing, let me quote from an old history book published by the Christian Reformed Church. Please also remember that I do not require belief in Landmarkism to establish a valid New Testament Church, as I've stated in my previous posts. I do think it's very interesting though, that this statement was made by the Reformed Church itself. In the "Generations" book, which was written to show the history of the "Christian Church" from Pentecost to the 1980's when the book was published, and clearly has a "catholicity" view of church history, it says something quite remarkable when it gets to the chapters on the Reformation when speaking of Baptists. It says "The Baptists have no one founder, as they came from many backgrounds, and it has been claimed that they have always existed in some form since the time of the apostles. Of all groups who claim antiquity, the Baptists have the most valid claim of any. Is it possible that some Christians never went along with the Roman Church's gradual departure from the truth, and remained separate from it? If so, the Baptists may have valid claims." 

May God lead us into all truth, humility when we find it, and boldness to proclaim it. Ken Mann


Saturday, June 12, 2021

REFORMED THEOLOGY ON THOSE WHO DON'T HEAR THE GOSPEL

   It seems to me that the main thrust of this blog is the error of the hardshell faction of Primitive Baptists, specifically the belief that God regenerates BEFORE conversion, and that He regenerates without means, without hearing the Gospel. It is my theory, that they acquired this heresy from reformed theology, and took it even further. As I have shown in previous articles, Reformed theology teaches "means" on one hand, including unscriptural ones (sacraments, including baptism) and the Gospel (the only means in my view).

   However, many Reformed folk also teach that God has regenerated many who are never converted and who never hear the Gospel. Many more think it is possible but just aren't sure. I am well aware that "Reformed Baptists" definitely hold these teachers in high esteem, so I must assume that the same thoughts about regeneration occurring BEFORE conversion, and regeneration and WITHOUT conversion are part of their theological thoughts as well. To date, I have not been able to find any reformed pastors who totally rule out "regeneration without conversion", except for the non Calvinist type like the Cumberland Presbyterians.. Let's see what some famous Reformed teachers have to say.

RC Sproul: "God may grant his mercy unilaterally at some point..." Sproul has also adopted giving Communion to baptized infants. (from Ligonier.org)

Daniel Strange: "The possibility of salvation among the unevangelized is very real." (He wrote a book on such titled "The Possibility of Salvation Among the Unevangelized: An Analysis of Inclusivism")

Millard Erickson: "The basis of acceptance would be the work of Jesus Christ, even though the person involved is not conscious that this is how provision has been made for his salvation. . . ."(from thegospelcoalition.com) His saying that God has made "provision" seems odd since "Provisionalism" is the term used by non Calvinists.

 Clark Pinnock: “I agree that inclusivism is not a central topic of discussion in the Bible and the evidence for it is less than one would like. But the vision of God’s love there is so strong that the existing evidence seems sufficient to me.”

The Westminster Confession:  “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.” (Notice it says "elect infants, not ALL infants. I reject this, as I believe ALL dying in infancy are among the elect, but more on this later. Also, to whom does "incapable" refer? Some would say those with mental disabilites, but again it says "elect" not "all". "Incapable" could also mean they simply have no way to hear the Gospel because no one has preached it to them.)

Reformed theologian Schleiermacher actually argued for universalism.

Second Halvetic Confession: "We recognize that God can illuminate whom and when he will, even without external ministry, for that is in his power." (Does "external ministry" include hearing the Gospel?)

Herman Bavinck Dutch Reformed theologian: "...the Reformed refused to establish the measure of grace needed for a human being still to be united with God, though subject to many errors and sins, or to determine the extent of the knowledge indispensably necessary to salvation.  Furthermore, they maintained that the means of grace are not absolutely necessary for salvation and that also apart from the Word and sacraments God can regenerate persons for eternal life."

Reformed theology gets stranger the further I dig into it. Why is it necessary to receive grace by "means", sacrament and Word for some,  but for others no means are necessary? On this I have to "defend" the hardshells, because if God does indeed regenerate persons without means, then He would do so far ALL. It seems to me that they define "unconditional" differently than those who are calvinistic but NOT reformed.

  Is it possible the hardshells gleaned their "new" Baptist doctrine from  the Reformed Presbyterians? I think it's very likely that they did along with "time" or "temporal" salvation, the main difference being that the Reformed position says even the non elect can have "temporal salvation" and can be "illuminated by the Spirit for a while, only to be finally lost and damned for the glory of God." I totally reject both of these premises. The former for teaching that the regenerated need not know the Truth in this life, the latter for claiming that God abandons any he has illuminated by His Spirit. This belief is like a piece of string. If put in a straight line with Reformed Calvinism on one end and Arminianism on the other, it appears that they are very far apart. But if you take the string and make a circle, the two opposite ends actually touch and become indistinguishable. In both camps one can "lose" his salvation. In both camps, you can never be sure if you are truly saved. Do you KNOW you have life? Jesus said you can! Ken Mann